NationStates Jolt Archive

A man in North Carolina just got fined for shirking his dependence on foreign oil (http://journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351566923&path=%21localnews&s=1037645509099) (and helping reduce greenhouse gases)...
Bob Teixeira, a Charlotte guitar teacher, took a stand against U.S. dependence on foreign oil last fall and spent $1,200 to convert his 1981 diesel Mercedes to run on vegetable oil. He buys soybean oil in 5-gallon jugs at Costco, which costs him about a third more than diesel.

Despite his good intentions, the state fined Teixeira $1,000 for not paying motor-fuel taxes. North Carolina officials also told him that to legally use veggie oil here, he’d have to first post a $2,500 bond.

And you know, when even the Republican politicians are with you on such 'hippy' matters, you know things have gotten out of hand-

“If somebody was going to go to this much trouble to drive around in a car that uses soybean oil, they ought to be exempt” from state taxes, said state Sen. Stan Bingham, R-Davidson, who drives a diesel Volkswagen fueled by used soybean oil that sports a sign reading “Goodbye, OPEC.”

Now, this isn't a one sided issue, the state, to a degree, has a point-
But the state’s not about to drop its taxes on all fuels used in highway vehicles. North Carolina’s 29.9-cent tax on a gallon of gas generates $1.2 billion each year to pay for road construction.

“With the high cost of fuel right now, the department does recognize that a lot of people are looking for relief,” said Reggie Little, assistant director of the motor-fuel taxes division. “We’re not here to hurt the small guy, we’re just trying to make sure that the playing field is level.”
Currently, without making everything a toll road, taxing fuels is the only way to make highway repairs a 'use tax.' The money has to come from somewhere, but alternative fuels are a little hard to track, causing this nonsense-
“State offices do not have the forms to appropriately and fairly deal with VegOil, nor the staff to enforce the nonexistent forms,” said director Cynthia Shelton. “So either they tell people inquiring about compliance to get lost, or they make them jump through a bunch of arbitrary hoops.”

And, just so I don't paint N.C. as uncaring bastards by selective quoting-
Teixeira and other independent-minded drivers may get a break from the state. The N.C. Department of Revenue, which fined Teixeira, has asked legislators to waive the $2,500 bond for small fuel-users. Also, Revenue officials told Teixeira the department will compromise on his fine.

Like I said, I can see their point about use tax and highway maintenance. Though their concern that there would be a huge drop in revenue is a little unfounded. Diesels alone account for very few of the cars on American roadways (I know this seems strange to Europeans) and even of those who own diesels it's only realistic for a select few of them to actually run their cars on Veggie Oil. SVO/WVO (straight/waste vegetable oil) fuel isn't a global solution as much as it is a personal one. The amount of people who even could do this is negligible over the grand scale. I think that the senator's case can be made that opting out of the tax could be seen as an incentive for those who can to reduce oil consumption and emissions. I don't think that even with that it's possible for the result to cripple North Carolina highways.

Chime in.

Sooo in the US fuel taxes are not paid when you purchase the fuel in question?

They're fining him for being green? What a bunch of retarded assholes. If anything, they should praise him and use his model as an example of what to do and give people incentive to convert then once everyone has converted, find a new way of slapping on the tax for road maintenance.

They should give a break for those using alternative nonpolluting fuels, instead of slapping them with a fine.

how is soy oil not pollutant? doesn't it also produce CO2 and other stuff when you burn it?

It sounds more like a law meant to prevent gas stations from shirking on their taxes than anything else; I imagine it was one of those bureaucracy things that come up from time to time, and not much more. However, it sounds like the state is resolving the problem, so it's not a huge problem. It's way better than those clowns who oppose wind turbines because they kill a few hundred birds but have no problem building communication towers that kill thousands each every year. At least the NC government is responsible.

So he's being fined for not paying a per use tax on a product he doesn't use?

Government beaurocracy in action.

Sooo in the US fuel taxes are not paid when you purchase the fuel in question?

They are, but soy bean oil is not sold as fuel, so he's only paying a sales tax on that and not a fuel tax, which is used to fund highway maintenance. In principal the gas tax is a use tax on the highways, when levied it made sense since the only way to use the highways was to buy fuel. Alternative fuels throw a wrench in that equation.

if he's not using motor fuel he shouldn't have to pay tax on it. seems simple enough to me.

The rules are similar in the UK, too. Huzzah.

if he's not using motor fuel he shouldn't have to pay tax on it. seems simple enough to me.

if he's not using motor fuel he shouldn't have to pay tax on it. seems simple enough to me.

I'm sure the argument is that he's using a fuel (biofuel) in a motor.

So it's a motor fuel. So the state wants its tax.

Yes, it would be nice if he were exempt. But, I'm sure the gasoline distributors are pressuring the government - after all, they have to pay the tax, and one guy using biodiesel might give more than a few gasoline customers a bright idea...

They are, but soy bean oil is not sold as fuel, so he's only paying a sales tax on that and not a fuel tax, which is used to fund highway maintenance. In principal the gas tax is a use tax on the highways, when levied it made sense since the only way to use the highways was to buy fuel. Alternative fuels throw a wrench in that equation.

they can easily get around that by renaming it 'road tax' like what we have here. that way, unless you declare and demonstrate that your car is 'off the road' (permanently or for long term) you pay for the upkeep of the roads you use.

Hahaha! Suprised the Democrats didn't lock him up for hurting the soybeans feelings too!

they can easily get around that by renaming it 'road tax' like what we have here. that way, unless you declare and demonstrate that your car is 'off the road' (permanently or for long term) you pay for the upkeep of the roads you use.

Actually that's a bit of a solution, though it won't be that popular in the short term, is to shift the tax to vehicle registration. It wouldn't proportion the tax to the heaviest users like the fuel tax does, though.

I'm sure the argument is that he's using a fuel (biofuel) in a motor.

So it's a motor fuel. So the state wants its tax.

Yes, it would be nice if he were exempt. But, I'm sure the gasoline distributors are pressuring the government - after all, they have to pay the tax, and one guy using biodiesel might give more than a few gasoline customers a bright idea...

it's a very bad argument though. the government is responible to its people not its oil companies.

it's a very bad argument though. the government is responible to its people not its oil companies.

Theoretically.

Actually that's a bit of a solution, though it won't be that popular in the short term, is to shift the tax to vehicle registration. It wouldn't proportion the tax to the heaviest users like the fuel tax does, though.

oh yeah, hadn't thought about that adantage of fuel tax. well, we have fuel tax here too, you just don't notice it so much cuz it's included in the cost of the fuel.

They are, but soy bean oil is not sold as fuel, so he's only paying a sales tax on that and not a fuel tax, which is used to fund highway maintenance. In principal the gas tax is a use tax on the highways, when levied it made sense since the only way to use the highways was to buy fuel. Alternative fuels throw a wrench in that equation.


Ahhh I see. Grrrrr goverments huh!

they can easily get around that by renaming it 'road tax' like what we have here. that way, unless you declare and demonstrate that your car is 'off the road' (permanently or for long term) you pay for the upkeep of the roads you use.

I have one of them all off road vehicles :) yay!

oh yeah, hadn't thought about that adantage of fuel tax. well, we have fuel tax here too, you just don't notice it so much cuz it's included in the cost of the fuel.

It's the same here. It's just blended in with the cost per gallon. I think our fuel taxes are way lower than yours, though I don't know for sure. But usually there isn't even a notice on the taxes, though sometimes stations put up signs that break down the taxes per gallon, sometimes in an effort to excuse the high price per gallon.

Theoretically.

yes indeed, it would be lovely if any government actually fulfilled its responsibilities ever. it would also be rather interesting to see pigs fly and hell freeze over.

yes indeed, it would be lovely if any government actually fulfilled its responsibilities ever. it would also be rather interesting to see pigs fly and hell freeze over.

Weeeeell funny you say that. I have seem them police helecopters, and acordeing to Norse mythology Hel is cold!

Weeeeell funny you say that. I have seem them police helecopters, and acordeing to Norse mythology Hel is cold!

heh! well maybe that's why scandinavian democracy seems so socially responsible...

That was a pretty long streak without a 'no' vote. I was starting to doubt that I had been fair in my presentation of the issue...

I have one of them all off road vehicles :) yay!

does it never go on the road at all? how do you get it to trails?

It's the same here. It's just blended in with the cost per gallon. I think our fuel taxes are way lower than yours, though I don't know for sure. But usually there isn't even a notice on the taxes, though sometimes stations put up signs that break down the taxes per gallon, sometimes in an effort to excuse the high price per gallon.

ah, yeh they're crazy high here.

*searches for figure*

wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax#United_Kingdom) says it's whatever percentage that all adds up to. according to another (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2000/world_fuel_crisis/933648.stm) website it's probably somewhere around 75% goes on taxes :eek:

how is soy oil not pollutant? doesn't it also produce CO2 and other stuff when you burn it?

Actually I'm pretty sure it does produce CO2. The government is actually stating that they have a fuel-tax, not neccesarily gas, or petroltax.

Why is he a greenie then? He doesn't use fossil fuel. Check wikipedia if you're not english, it means we won't ever be out of soya oil, we will be out of oil and such. Soya oil is derived from plants and produced, just like clean air is produced by trees.

There is however another case as well, whereas the greeny would be a lot more green: If he'd have a car running on hydrogen (water). If you have a motor running on this kind of 'fuel' it doesn't produce CO2, instead it produces H2O... Yes! More water! So water is a way of clean and cheap fuel. The problem is to produce this kind of H2O, more energy is needed than the H20 can deliver afterwards. So the target is to gather energy from for example light, the sun, to generate H2O and then we're set for a cleaner, cheaper future. Some scientists believe we won't ever be able to produce enough H2O to provide everyone, but hey, in that time we'll propably have a lot of energy from the sun and such.

Okay, WTF? This is coming from a state full of tree-huggers? :confused:

North Carolina is, trust me, very "green". They don't like pollution down here unless the Virginians tell them to eff off. I would have thought they'd just put a tax on soybean fuel. Gasoline isn't the only fuel anymore, you know. I was sure that my state knew this.

For shame, North Carolina, for shame. :mad:

Soybean fuel is much better than gasoline. plenty of soybean fuel for everyone :)

how is soy oil not pollutant? doesn't it also produce CO2 and other stuff when you burn it?Well, yeah, but it's a renewable energy source. Burning coal and oil causes a lot of pollution that can't be offset because the plant matter it's made of died aeons ago. The CO2 released when burning soy oil is only as much as the soy plant absorbed earlier during its life, so the burning is not "adding" anything to the atmosphere.
At least that's what everybody always says. <<

As for the other pollutants that are released, you kind of have to be correct, though.

Well, yeah, but it's a renewable energy source. Burning coal and oil causes a lot of pollution that can't be offset because the plant matter it's made of died aeons ago. The CO2 released when burning soy oil is only as much as the soy plant absorbed earlier during its life, so the burning is not "adding" anything to the atmosphere.
At least that's what everybody always says. <<

As for the other pollutants that are released, you kind of have to be correct, though.

Yes, I'm sure :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: that the nitrogen oxides formed by the combustion of soy oil are somehow reclaimed by nature :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes, I'm sure :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: that the nitrogen oxides formed by the combustion of soy oil are somehow reclaimed by nature :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Probably the same way that NOx emissions are dealt with from petrol and diesel cars.

Yes, I'm sure :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: that the nitrogen oxides formed by the combustion of soy oil are somehow reclaimed by nature :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
You know, if you had actually read my post, you could have saved yourself all those smilies.
Well, yeah, but it's a renewable energy source. Burning coal and oil causes a lot of pollution that can't be offset because the plant matter it's made of died aeons ago. The CO2 released when burning soy oil is only as much as the soy plant absorbed earlier during its life, so the burning is not "adding" anything to the atmosphere.
At least that's what everybody always says. <<

As for the other pollutants that are released, you kind of have to be correct, though.

Yes, I'm sure :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: that the nitrogen oxides formed by the combustion of soy oil are somehow reclaimed by nature :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Oh for the love of...

The problem with fossil fuels is that their bi product hasn't been part of the atmosphere for over 65 million years. With biofuels its stuff that was part of the atmosphere within the last year, it's not introducing new it's recycling old.

Jesus christ, even my 7 year old nephew knows the basics of this stuff by now, where the hell have you been hiding?

Yes, I'm sure :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: that the nitrogen oxides formed by the combustion of soy oil are somehow reclaimed by nature :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Actually, they are.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Nitrogen_Cycle.jpg
Nitrogen cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle)

So he's being fined for not paying a per use tax on a product he doesn't use?

Government beaurocracy in action.

Gas taxes are not so much just a tax on the product. Those taxes are (in theory) returned to the general fund to pay for things like road repaving, etc.

Some methods that could replace gas tax are higher tolls (toll plazas aren't generally safe, and not all states have them), higher vehicle registration fees, increased tax on motor vehicle sales/repairs/vehicle-related items.
But yes, this man should still be taxed. He is still using the roads and should be paying the same as everyone else.

You know, if you had actually read my post, you could have saved yourself all those smilies.

Come, come. You should know that's not how he rolls :cool:

Gas taxes are not so much just a tax on the product. Those taxes are (in theory) returned to the general fund to pay for things like road repaving, etc.

Some methods that could replace gas tax are higher tolls (toll plazas aren't generally safe, and not all states have them), higher vehicle registration fees, increased tax on motor vehicle sales/repairs/vehicle-related items.
But yes, this man should still be taxed. He is still using the roads and should be paying the same as everyone else.

It's not so much that I agree with you but rather see your point. But how do you go about it. He's actually doing something we want to encourage, so you don't want to punish him for it. But how do you determine it? Especially in the case of WVO, where the person is paying nothing for their base fuel and there isn't any record of how much is used. When you're charged $.30 every 20-40 miles (depending on vehicle) it doesn't seem that much of a blow...actually let me do some math here...

I'm taking transportation statistics cited on this page (http://www.ridetowork.org/transportation-fact-sheet) (they are actually US Dept of Transportation, Bureau of Travel Statistics that are cited on a page apparently encouraging motorcycle usage, and they're from 2003. For the purpose of this exercise they'll do fine.).

So, lets take their passenger statistics, since the Benz in question qualifies-
Passenger Cars 74,590 million gallons (22.3 avg mpg x 13,000 miles per year per car)
That's about right for the mileage of a mid-80s MB diesel. I can't vouch for his commute.

Hmmm...that doesn't seem right. That puts it at $22,377, I don't even make that most years...I've done something wrong. Ah, I see...that wasn't the amount of gas used by one person...damn, what was I thinking. I don't have to acknowledge that I just fucked up the calculations that hard, but I will for no apparent reason. Now that I look at it, that's 74,590 million, so I missed six zeros...couldn't have gotten that more wrong.

But lets say that he does drive 13,000 miles in a year at 22mpg. That puts the gallons a year at 590ish. At $.30 a gallon that would put his contribution at $177ish (the calculator provided a lot of decimals. This would mean that the $2500 (which, to be fair is going to be waived) and the $1000 is actually pretty severe, since thats more the 5 times the average users tax for doing something proactive about fuel consumption.

Actually, that gives me an idea. Why not assess that tax to alternative fuel vehicles upon registration. Something like $150-170. This is provided that I didn't fuck the math up somewhere. I now realize I included my first mistake as an admission that I might have done something wrong and to invite people to check my work. If it is, say for roundings sake $150 the highways get their tax money and that person gets a break in that he can drive the fuck out of his car and doesn't pay extra. Not that people with alternative fuels are prone to doing such things, especially since this guy is using more expensive soy oil. It's a thought, though.

Come, come. You should know that's not how he rolls :cool:

That was some bad punnage.

Here (http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_statistics/north_carolina/html/table_05_04.html) is a breakdown of per capita highway miles per state for 2000. (I would have thought California would have been higher...).

I can't get a simple breakdown, but I'm probably not looking the right way.

That was some bad punnage.

:D :fluffle:

:D :fluffle:

:fluffle:

Stumble gave me another very similar version of the article (http://www.charlotte.com/112/story/153260.html) that adds this-
Outraged Illinois legislators this spring quickly waived that state's $2,500 bond requirement when an elderly man was nabbed for using waste vegetable oil.

In the mountain district of state Sen. John Snow, D-Cherokee, home-brewed ethanol was once known as moonshine. But a couple of constituents who made it for fuel have been fined for the same tax violation that got Teixeira in trouble.
The idea of moonrunners resurfacing, but this time instead of liquor it's fuel is amusing and a little romantic in that Americana kind of way...

Actually that's a bit of a solution, though it won't be that popular in the short term, is to shift the tax to vehicle registration. It wouldn't proportion the tax to the heaviest users like the fuel tax does, though.

I think the best solution would be to leave the guy alone for now--leave the taxation out of it unless it becomes a burgeoning industry, sort of how we've left taxation out of the internet economy until it got on its feet. In short, address it when there are enough people doing it to involve some real money.

I think the best solution would be to leave the guy alone for now--leave the taxation out of it unless it becomes a burgeoning industry, sort of how we've left taxation out of the internet economy until it got on its feet. In short, address it when there are enough people doing it to involve some real money.

That's true enough. Like I said earlier, the amount of people who even can use S/WVO is so small, if it really only amounts to $170 per user in lost tax revenue it isn't going to be that big a blow. If a significant number of users emerged more trackable distribution would have to be in place and taxation of that wouldn't really be a problem at all. To treat the pioneers as tax evaders seems to miss the point.

I thought most fuel taxes are only for traditional fuels. I guess South Carolina is more comprehensive. But yes, those that don't use gas or diesel shouldn't be taxed. Same with hybrid car owners.

I thought most fuel taxes are only for traditional fuels. I guess South Carolina is more comprehensive. But yes, those that don't use gas or diesel shouldn't be taxed. Same with hybrid car owners.

This is North Carolina. How dare you mistake me for a --

Wait, there's little difference. Never mind.

I think those who do use other fuels (such as soybean oil) should be taxed. They drive on the same roads as everyone else who uses gasoline and pays for the road maintainance, therefore they should pay the tax.

I thought most fuel taxes are only for traditional fuels. I guess South Carolina is more comprehensive. But yes, those that don't use gas or diesel shouldn't be taxed. Same with hybrid car owners.

That would make hybrids quite the deal, getting their gas that they already don't use as much of for $.30 less than everyone else. I'm not opposed to it, but that would be a hard sell...


A random thought occoured, isn't this a bit of a state enforced monopoly of sorts? Not of a specific company, but of a specific product? If you don't use oil (gas or diesel) you're a tax evader? I wonder, and I know shit all about law in this case, if that's a road to striking that down.

This is North Carolina. How dare you mistake me for a --

Wait, there's little difference. Never mind.

I think those who do use other fuels (such as soybean oil) should be taxed. They drive on the same roads as everyone else who uses gasoline and pays for the road maintainance, therefore they should pay the tax.

The real problem, then, is the way the tax structure is set up. I mean, by that logic, you ought to be taxing people who don't own cars but take cabs or use public transportation as well.

The real problem, then, is the way the tax structure is set up. I mean, by that logic, you ought to be taxing people who don't own cars but take cabs or use public transportation as well.

To play devils advocate a bit on that, don't they already, though? Since cost of gas is factored into the fairs of both, by extension aren't they by default paying the tax?

Really, we should try to tax according to vehicle-miles travelled; otherwise, as people buy more fuel efficient vehicles and use more alternative fuels, the amount of revenue going to maintenance will decline even if vehicle-miles continue to increase (which is entirely possible and almost a certainty). The model we have in use now is really a product of the era when vehicle fuel consumption had a far stronger correlation to the amount of miles travelled and so increases in demand would have an equitable effect on the amount of revenue.

Good fine him, stop encouraging dipshits to grow field crops for alternative fuels.

To play devils advocate a bit on that, don't they already, though? Since cost of gas is factored into the fairs of both, by extension aren't they by default paying the tax?

I suppose--but what about bicyclists? Eh? ;)

Really, we should try to tax according to vehicle-miles travelled; otherwise, as people buy more fuel efficient vehicles and use more alternative fuels, the amount of revenue going to maintenance will decline even if vehicle-miles continue to increase (which is entirely possible and almost a certainty). The model we have in use now is really a product of the era when vehicle fuel consumption had a far stronger correlation to the amount of miles travelled and so increases in demand would have an equitable effect on the amount of revenue.
I think that as average MPG rises the tax itself rises, though I'm basing that on speculation. Also, taxing on miles driven is a tricky proposition and I would think difficult to implement.

And I'd have to fix the odometer on my bus and I don't wanna...[/irrelevant]

Good fine him, stop encouraging dipshits to grow field crops for alternative fuels.
While I don't agree with the way we grow and process corn for fuel in this country, there are other models including hemp in Canada, sugar in Brazil and some encouraging developments in algae in the formation of biodiesel (http://www.ecotality.com/blog/2007/algae-biodiesel-may-soon-be-reality/), I'd be interested in why people finding alternatives are 'dipshits' that shouldn't be encouraged...

I suppose--but what about bicyclists? Eh? ;)

Screw those freeloading bastards...wait, I live in San Francisco...this will end badly for me...

While I don't agree with the way we grow and process corn for fuel in this country, there are other models including hemp in Canada, sugar in Brazil and some encouraging developments in algae in the formation of biodiesel (http://www.ecotality.com/blog/2007/algae-biodiesel-may-soon-be-reality/), I'd be interested in why people finding alternatives are 'dipshits' that shouldn't be encouraged...
I said the ons growing them are dipshits. The ones growing field crops as biodiesel fuel arn't finding anything, they are in fact in charge of the lobby to get themselves a lot of extra money for providing "alternative fuels." Researchers are finding new potential biofuels, assuming they can get money for it if they try to research anything but corn and soybean.

I said the ons growing them are dipshits. The ones growing field crops as biodiesel fuel arn't finding anything, they are in fact in charge of the lobby to get themselves a lot of extra money for providing "alternative fuels." Researchers are finding new potential biofuels, assuming they can get money for it if they try to research anything but corn and soybean.
You're being your usual vague and incomplete self. You're talking about corn based ethonal farmers, and while lobbying for their own interests, they still are in fact coming up with an alternative. Like I said I don't agree with the way corn is grown and processed and especially don't like the way that American car companies use 'flexfuel' cars to get around average MPG standards, but to say that someone using waste vegetable oil to fuel their late model diesel needs to be fined because of some unrelated and poorly formed policy issue, well, I'd love to hear a more thorough defense of that from you.

Well this was an absurd case. The Department of Taking Away Your Shit needs to find something better to do, like get a playstation.

Well this was an absurd case. The Department of Taking Away Your Shit needs to find something better to do, like get a playstation.

I consistently expect too much from you. I really should stop.

I consistently expect too much from you. I really should stop.

The Department of Taking All Your Shit has no realistic reason to fine him for not paying gas taxes.

The Department of Taking All Your Shit has no realistic reason to fine him for not paying gas taxes.

So you've said...(after saying the exact opposite...)

Some scientists believe we won't ever be able to produce enough H2O to provide everyone, but hey, in that time we'll propably have a lot of energy from the sun and such.

Some nuclear reactor types (such as a pebble bed) are very good at splitting water apart... *runs from total anti-nuclear people*

Then again if you could harvest light in enough quantities you could easily do the same (electrolosis in a high temperature environment).

Actually, they are.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Nitrogen_Cycle.jpg
Nitrogen cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_cycle)

I had to study that in microbiology... Hooray for Arthrobacter!